In which I try to address my white privilege, or otherwise justify my ardent love for Little House.

[laceblade]

I'm reading lots of Little House-related books and was about to write a post about Roger Lea MacBride's Rose books. But then I got to writing, and figured I should just make this its own post. Please feel free to openly discuss the topic: I am okay with being called on my shit, analyzing my white privilege, and focusing on the discussion at hand and not my hurt feelings.


I've already written on LiveJournal about Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books here and here.
I reread the entire series every year throughout my childhood. I think that I was reading these books in kindergarten. This seems improbable, but I have pretty distinct memories.

There was some discussion last time I posted about the books, with people linking to this website about the books showing the erasure of the American Indians.

I'm still not really sure how I feel about this critique. The book that deals most closely with American Indians is the second one, Little House on the Prairie, when Pa accidentally builds a house right next to hunting path, in the middle of Reservation land. As a child, I remember imprinting on Pa Ingalls disagreeing with their neighbor, Mr. Scott, because Mr. Scott would say, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." 'What a dick!' I thought as a kid. And in the end, the Ingalls move.

Yeah, the Ingalls moved around the Midwest and "settled" land that had already been inhabited by American Indians. It sucks. Even though Pa didn't kill anybody, he still participated in this movement of shunting aside indigenous people in favor of white people.

So did my ancestors, who lived in cities and farmed land that used to belong to different people.

But I guess I'm just curious. What else was Laura supposed to write about, if she's writing her personal history? It's a shitty thing that happened, but I think that not owning up to it, or sanitizing children's literature from it is not going to help matters at all.

She lived in the 19th century, and wrote in the 1930s. She wrote about her life. Is that bad?

I can see why any person would prefer to not read the Little House series and would rather read books about the lives of American Indians instead: books about them, books by them, books that celebrate them. I totally respect people who might decide to do that (not that anybody needs my permission).

But I guess I'm just curious why Laura Ingalls Wilder gets a bad rap when not everyone else does. As antarcticlust astutely noted in the comments of one of my previous posts on the LH books, "You mean to tell me that a story about upper-class, privileged women living in a society whose wealth is almost entirely based on imperialism is not a narrative of erasure?"


Anyway. This discussion of race will probably be tied in to future posts I made about this universe of Laura Ingalls Wilder books, because I'm devouring them like candy, and I tell you what Internet, there is some heinous shit out there, and I intend to read it so that you don't have to. I wanted this topic to get its own post, so that's that.

Comments

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

Of course, everyone tries not to speak ill of their own families. I know that Laura glossed over the death of her baby brother, for example, by not mentioning it at all.

And finally, she didn't write about her family's history with full truth. She made them out to look better than they probably were.

You alluded to this in your last few comments as well, and I'm wondering if there's some kind of specific event you're referring to?

[seaya.livejournal.com]

Well, just in your post here alone you mention that in the book they "accidentally" settled on reservation land. Not so much.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that he accidentally built it on reservation land (although that very well might have been true), but that he accidentally built their house right next to the hunting path. As in, American Indians rode past their house very frequently. Do you think that a man who often left his wife and children by themselves would purposely build his house next to a road?

[seaya.livejournal.com]

The article in Oyate details stuff about the real Ingalls family. You mentioned you read it above, so you should be familiar with what it says.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the article, and like I said last time, I'm still not sure what events you're alluding to.

Even the author of the article is pointing out this his opinions of the activities of Laura's father are speculation:

The Osages were hungry because white men such as her father were burning their fields, forcing them at gunpoint from their homes and threatening them with death if they returned, stealing their food and horses, even robbing their graves—all to force them to abandon their land. There is no proof, of course, that Charles Ingalls took part in these crimes, but I assume that he did, since he was sleazy enough to willfully steal their land, their most valuable possession.

Additionally, even in the words of author of the article, Laura doesn't hide it in the novel that they're living on Reservation land.

He unabashedly told little Laura, trying to explain why he had moved the family to the Osage reservation, that because they and other whites were there, the Army would drive the Indians away.


It's a pretty big article; is there something else that I'm missing, that you're referring to?

[seaya.livejournal.com]

Of course she doesn't hide it, she couches it as a good thing. Which is the problem. It *is* sanitized, because it takes the side of the white settler as hero, even if he didn't kill anyone.

I am not really saying that people can't like problematic things despite how problematic they are, but a lot of your posts on the topic are kind of making excuses and defensive about it. You say you don't mind being called on your white privilege on this, but I don't really think that's true regarding this book.

You even are aware of your defensiveness, as you mention in the thread below.

So, I would suggest that we not continue this thread. Obviously I am not thinking "omg mystickeeper sucks I am not her friend eleventy!!11!!" We all have our things like this. This is a testament to the power of what we read as a child, such that even when we know better, it's tough to let go of some things. If I'd like to come to agreement with you on anything, it's that fact, that what we read as children does have tremendous power.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

Of course you're right about my privilege wanking all over the place (and I'm able to say that only after reading your comment and then spending an entire comment thinking about it).

I know you're not saying people can't like problematic things (and I agree with that too - hell, I like Firefly). I guess I was trying to argue whether or not it was problematic in the first place, which is a weird thing for me to do. Of course it's problematic! Yes, she's an adult woman looking back and writing from a child's point of view, interpreting her parents' anger and writing it down, but she still does paint it rosily, compared to the way the American Indians actually lived, right around her.